I do think it's a fair point to say that precedence should be reviewed in some circumstances to examine why they were set and if it was correctly set. We do not have an immutable constitution and we do not have an immutable set of laws, why would we think that court precedence all of a sudden become immutable for all of time?
There have been, in recent memory, rulings that have been brand new and are overarching. Oftentimes the precedents set prior only dealt with very specific and narrow issues that could be encompassed by this new ruling. The new ruling doesn't automatically invalidate those earlier ones but it does call into question if they are still valid.
...you know with a spirit good-faith public discourse with a high availability of evidence.
bediger4000•1h ago
Seems like a bad idea on that basis.
fabianholzer•1h ago
The term you might be looking for is plutocracy.